Mohd.Ramzan Khan vs State of J&K and another

Abdul Majid Khan, detenu has been detained under the orders of District Magistrate, Baramulla, under S. 8, J and K Public Safety Act, 1978.

His brother, Moh'd Ramzan Khan, petitioner herein, has challenged the order of detention by filing the present petition. The grounds of detention

which were served upon the detenu read as under :

On 1311985 he delivered speech to the gathering in JamiaMasjid, Bandipora and challenged the sovereignty of India and created hatred between

Hindus and Muslims and asked the audience to struggle for the liberation of Kashmir. He also provoked audience to bring a revolution for the

imposition of Islamic Rule in the State and asked the people to overthrow the Govt.

On 24121985 he addressed the public meeting during the election campaign at Bandipora Chowk and challenged the accession of Jammu and

Kashmir with the Union of India and also addressed inflammatory speech that J and K State is disputed and the issue is sub judice in U.N.O. and

categorically challenged the sovereignty of India. He further provoked and instigated the gathering that it is unknown where the dead body of

Maqbool Bhat was buried by the Govt. of India and also challenged the socialism and propagated Islamic Rule which created hatred among the

different religious communities. He incited the audience to be prepared to use force to liberate Kashmir from the clutches of India and also

disrupted the public order.

On 291983 he also created hatred against Hindus that a Hindu had kidnapped a Muslim girl. In this connection one Nazir Ahmed and Sanjay

Pandita were brought in P/s Bandipore for preliminary enquiry in FIR case No. 88/83. He along with other associates attacked P/s Bandipora and

pelted stones, tried to loot malkhana of the P/s and also tried to set the P/s on fire. He along with his associates assaulted police party in which

some police personnel were injured and in this way he attempted to kill them. In this connection a case FIR No. 89/83 under Ss. 307, 148, 427,

336, 332, 149 and 505 RPC was registered, in P/s Bandipora against him and his associates who were apprehended and challan produced in the

Court of law on 22121983.

He is a staunch and an active worker of JEI, and challenges sovereignty of India and accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union

of India. In spite of legal proceedings initiated against him, he does not desist from carrying on antinational activities. His activities are highly

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The respondents have not filed any counter in the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Govt. Advocate. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

grounds are vague and the same do not in any way attract the provisions of S. 8, Public Safety Act. Learned Chief Govt. Advocate, has, however,

conceded that grounds 2, 3 and 4 be not taken into consideration even though the date mentioned in ground No. 2 i.e. 24121985 is a

typographical error but according to him, ground No. 1 is sufficient to bring the case of the detenu within the purview of S. 8 of the aforesaid Act.

The detention of the detenu has been ordered mainly on the ground that his remaining at large was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public

order. The term ""acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"" has been defined in S. 8 of the Act and it reads as under :

(8) For the purposes of subs. (1)

(a) ""acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State"" means making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or using or instigating,

inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the use of force, to overthrow or overawe the Government established by law in the State;

(b) ""acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"" means

i) promoting, propagating, or attempting to create, feeling of enmity or hatred or disharmony of grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or

region;

ii) making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or using, or instigating, inciting, provoking, or otherwise abetting the use of force where such

preparation, using, attempting, instigating, inciting, provoking or abetting disturbs or is likely to disturb public order;

iii) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of mischief within the meaning of S.

425, Ranbir Penal Code, where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to disturb public order;

iv) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of an offence punishable with death

or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more, where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to

disturb public order.

Section 10A, JandK Public Safety (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, provides that where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of

detention under S. 8 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on

each of such grounds and accordingly such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds

is/are vague, nonexistent, nonrelevant, not connected or invalid for any other reason whatsoever.

Ground No. 1 of detention order provides that detenu on 1311985 delivered a speech to the gathering in Jamia Masjid, Bandipore wherein he

challenged the sovereignty of India and tried to create communal hatred between Hindus and Muslims and asked the audience to struggle for the

liberation of Kashmir. There is also another allegation against the detenu that he also provoked the audience to bring a revolution for the imposition

of Islamic Rule in the State and asked the people to overthrow the Government. Such ground comes within the purview of definition ""acting in any

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted to bring the vagueness in this ground by referring to the word 'audience' occurring in ground

No. 1, which, according to him, is vague because the persons have not been nominated who were supposed to be the audience in the said

gathering. 1 think there is no such ambiguity in it which requires any clarification because audience consists of so many persons and their names

were not required to be mentioned in the grounds of detention. Courts are not supposed to find fault with the order of the District Magistrate and

to search for loopholes. It should always be left to the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate who is the detaining authority and the proper

person to have the knowledge as he is the person who has to control the situation created by such like persons as the detenu in the instant case

especially in this country of Gandhiji and Nehruji who believed in secularism and attached great importance to this ideology. This ideology of

secularism was made the basic factor and anybody eroding such ideology was made liable to action under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act.

There is no good ground in the petition that requires interference with the order of the detaining authority and as such the petition is dismissed.